Read the facts of the case and trial court ruling below and write a minimum 1500 word critical analysis of it. Using your course readings as guidance, critique the ruling and how the division of assets will ultimately affect the wife. After 37 years of marriage, petitioner, a teacher, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against respondent, a disabled pharmacist. The trial court divided the property of the parties and awarded each party a one-half interest in petitioner’s pension from the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS). Testimony presented at trial established that the parties had three children during their marriage. All of the children are now emancipated adults. At the time of trial, petitioner was 62 years old and working as a middle school science teacher. She had submitted her retirement notice and had two more years to work before it took effect. Respondent was 61 years old and worked as a pharmacist from 1974 to 2009. In 2009, he was found to be disabled and began receiving Social Security disability benefits. In 2013, he was receiving disability benefits of $2,386 per month. In 1992, petitioner was hired as a teacher for Bartonville School District No. 66. Prior to that, she worked as a nurse for several years and contributed to Social Security. From 1992 on, she contributed to a TRS pension instead of Social Security. When she retires, her TRS pension will pay $2,056 per month. Her Social Security income at age 62 will be $282 per month. ¶ 5 Both parties submitted financial affidavits. According to respondent’s financial affidavit, his monthly expenses total $2,235.61. According to petitioner’s second-amended financial affidavit, her monthly expenses total $4,064.36. In 2012, petitioner’s net income was $37,694.52, and respondent’s net income was $27,319.40. After hearing the evidence and testimony, the trial court announced its oral ruling on the petition for dissolution and motions filed by the parties. The court equally divided the parties’ retirement accounts, which had a value of over $300,000. The court also ordered that petitioner’s TRS pension be divided equally between the parties by a “Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order” (QILDRO). The court ordered that the parties pay their own debts and their own attorney fees. The court denied respondent’s request for maintenance and found no dissipation of marital assets by either party. The court equally divided the cash assets between the parties. Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider the court’s ruling, arguing that the court erred in dividing her TRS pension and failing to award her maintenance because, upon her retirement, she will receive a total of $1,310 per month from her pension and Social Security, while respondent will receive monthly income of $3,414.90 from half of her pensibcqon and his Social Security disability payments.